Post
Topic
Board Politics & Society
Re: The Negative Consequences of Net Neutrality Explained in 2 Minutes
by
username18444
on 20/11/2014, 22:46:17 UTC
Quote from: Peter Kropotkin, Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets link=http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/revpamphlets/anarchistcommunism.html
Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin.

I can't understand how a bunch people who can tell and force everyone else how they should behave, sleep and drink be compatible with a bunch of people not wanting any master and live as they see fit while not wanting to arm anyone else? I am guessing I am not smart enough to understand this great concept and need to read tons and tons of books... Roll Eyes


Right, so we have the internet and it is not perfect. Still that framework was good enough to create facebook, google, netflix, but also ANONYMOUS and Bitcoin and TOR, etc, etc.

How changing this framework back to laws thought and created in the 1930's make this amazing technology better for the 21th century and beyond? The internet will be a utility only in the USA, but not in South Korea or Guatemala or Canada?


It shows how far we have sunk. Now people just react based on politics without a clue as to what they are talking about. "oh, he's for it? Them I'm against it!". Roll Eyes

Oh god, you just perfectly summed up the two-party system. Why do you see so many negative attack ads? Because in a two-party system, it's easier to convince you not to vote for someone than it is to vote for someone. So you convince them to vote against your opponent, and you're the only other choice.

It's sort of amusing to me when people say Democracy when its really communism with one other party ^^
Essentially its either A or B so fundamentally it doesn't seem like much of a democracy to me just who you pay more money to in order to get the outcome you want.

Quote from: Merriam-Webster link=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
democracy
1  b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
Quote from: Merriam-Webster link=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plutocracy
plutocracy
1  :  government by the wealthy

You write as if plutocracy were republican democracy.

You write as if lobbyists paid very well for influencing politicians' votes do not exist...

Comcast loves 0bama's plan. Does that mean the people voted for Comcast?

More control from government will not make things easier for creatives minds now, especially the ones with ideas but no money. This has been proven over and over again.

. . .

You write as if plutocracy were republican democracy.

. . .

Readers should read the logic in the prior two threads on this "net neutrality" debate:

Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means

Logic does not matter. Some here are willing to fight for their belief that a more powerful centralized power is good for humans, on a forum dedicated to an amazing fully working decentralized creation...

I will never get that.

Regarding this, it should be noted that I presently hold to anarchist communism and am merely pursuing your own logical consistency.

Quote from: Leo Tolstoy, Tolstoy (1988) by A. N. Wilson, p. 146. link=http://izquotes.com/quote/273222
The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.